MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1824190324

Comparison of Biology Student Performance in Quarter and Semester Systems.

2015· article· en· W1824190324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian B. Gibbens, Mary A. Williams, Anna K. Strain, Courtney D. M. Hoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege and university · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)ScheduleMathematics educationCurriculumPsychologyMedical educationHigher educationPedagogyMedicinePolitical scienceGeographyManagementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CURRICULA AT MOST COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES ARE SCHEDULED ACCORD- ING TO QUARTERS OR SEMESTERS. WHILE EACH SCHEDULE HAS SEVERAL POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OVER THE OTHER, IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT EFFECT EACH HAS ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE. THIS STUDY COMPARES BIOLOGY STUDENT PERFORMANCE DURING THE TWO AND A HALF YEARS BEFORE AND AFTER THE 1999 SWITCH FROM QUARTERS TO SEMESTERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES. STUDENT PERFORMANCE WAS ASSESSED BY EXAMINING GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS, POINT TOTALS, AND SCORES ON ARCHIVED EXAM QUESTIONS. THE CHANGE FROM QUARTERS TO SEMESTERS RESULTED IN A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT OVERALL DECREASE IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE AS JUDGED BY MEAN FINAL SCORES, GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS, AND EXAM QUESTION SCORES. BECAUSE STUDENT EDUCATION IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, THESE RESULTS HAVE IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS FOR ANY INSTITUTION CONSIDERING A CHANGE IN ITS CURRICULAR SCHEDULE.Colleges and universities have long debated the utility and effectiveness of different academic calendars. While many calendar systems exist, the early-start semester and the modern quarter system are the most common. The early-start semester begins after Labor Day and runs until Christmas; late-start semesters run from mid-September until late January (Stainburn 2008). The modern quarter system has a year-round calendar such that most students study for three consecutive quarters with an optional summer quarter. The decision to adopt one calendar over another has been based primarily on the perceived benefits to students (Table 1, on page 14) and on the perceived ad- ministrative, logistical, and faculty benefits (Table 2, on page 15) associated with each.Much thought has been devoted to the pros and cons of the semester and quarter calendars, but relatively few studies have addressed their effect on student performance. One study that examined student attitudes about personal performance in each system found that although students had a slightly lower G PA in the semester calendar (1.443 vs.1.568), the students believed that the grades they received more accurately reflected what they learned (Mertes 1969). The study's authors speculated that students may have performed better in the quarter system because (1) they were under more pressure to learn the material, (1) the semester exams were more challenging and open ended whereas the quarter exams were based more on fact-recall questions, and/or (3) faculty on the quarter system may have graded less stringently (Mertes 1969). Another study found that changing from a quarter to a semester calendar had an adverse effect on student grades and course completion rates (Coleman, Boite & Franklin 1984). Because data were examined only from one quarter before and two semesters after the change, this decrease could have been a temporary result. A review of Dutch studies that have examined the effect of academic calendars on student performance revealed that rather than studying throughout the term, students on a semester calendar tended to study right before their exams (Jansen 1993). The review concluded that the extra time in the semester encouraged cramming and procrastination.This work investigates changes in student performance in BIOL 1009, a non-major general biology course at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (umntc) two and a half years before and two and a half years after changing from a quarter calendar to an early-start semester calendar. Undergraduate student performance was assessed by examining mean final course scores, grade distributions, and question-specific performance on exam questions that were asked both before and after the change in calendar. The exam questions were categorized according to the following topics: evolution, genetics, ecology, cell biology, organismal biology, metabolism, and the chemical and physical basis for life (capb). This categorization allowed investigation of whether the change from the quarter to the early-start semester calendar had a disproportionate effect on student performance on a particular topic. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege and universitySame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207