MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1902091316 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5779

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF STUDENT LED TUTORIALS ON FIRST YEAR STUDENTS' LEARNING OUTCOMES

2015· article· en· W1902091316 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sohad Kadhum, Bradley J. Buckham, Ben Nadler

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsTroubleshootingPresentation (obstetrics)Mathematics educationPopulationMedical educationComputer scienceBachelorPsychologyEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ENGR 141: Engineering Mechanics is afoundational course in the UVic Engineering Faculty thatserves all of the engineering degree programs:biomedical, civil, mechanical, electrical, computer andsoftware. Between the 2013 and 2014 offerings of thecourse, the ENGR 141 population grew dramatically, bywell over 50%, necessitating changes in the coursestructure and methods of student assessment. In additionto addressing logistical challenges, the changes weredesigned to develop the students’ confidence in theirability to wield fundamental mechanical principlesindependently and in peer-to-peer working environments.This was done by repurposing the tutorial sections of thecourse to create student driven exploration, analysis andsolution of complex three dimensional mechanicsproblems.A series of 22 problems lying outside the domain of theassignment problem sets were addressed-two in eachweek of the tutorials. The assignments and midtermsproblems were constructed so that the impact of tutorialwork on students mastery of the course Intended LearningOutcomes could be extracted.Under the new tutorial format, instructors monitoredgroup dynamics, helped troubleshoot and providedencouragement. Presentation of solution strategies weremade by select student groups each week. The currentwork describes the motivation for the changes made,observations made at implementation and somepreliminary results from analyses of the impact of the newcourse structure on student mastery of the course learningoutcomes. Important conclusions are that the student-ledtutorials should be accompanied with additionalinstructor contact hours that provide opportunity forstudents to receive tutelage on a one-to-one basis andthat individual testing should stress the procedures andtools emphasized in the tutorials.In addition, students found that assessments madethrough multiple choice testing contradicted values andprinciples being stressed in the tutorial and seminarsessions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesFrench-language works237,207