MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582780328 · doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030109

Academic Skill Development - Inquiry Seminars Can Make a Difference: Evidence from a Quasi-experimental Study

2009· article· en· W1582780328 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsTeamworkPsychologyPsychological interventionPresentation (obstetrics)Medical educationTest (biology)Study skillsMathematics educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines whether a single first-year inquiry-based seminar can have a lasting impact on students’ academic skills. Fifty-four Inquiry students and 71 comparable students participated in three performance tests: a research skills exercise; an evaluation of oral presentation ability; and a test of critical reasoning and teamwork skills. In addition, participants completed a questionnaire focusing on learning approaches and experiences. The study demonstrates the feasibility of measuring long-term effects of relatively small educational interventions. Findings indicate that although universities may not be developing the skills they assume, a single first-year inquiry seminar can have far reaching effects on academic skill development and these skills are typically lasting.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.194
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it