MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965190151 · doi:10.1207/s15328023top3302_3

The Echo Approach in Developing Items for Student Evaluation of Teaching Performance

2006· article· en· W1965190151 on OpenAlexaff
John Cunningham, James N. MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching of Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcho (communications protocol)PsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)Mathematics educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article illustrates the application of the Echo approach, originally designed to identify values of different cultures and subcultures, to the generation of questionnaire items for students to evaluate faculty teaching performance. Students preferred items generated using the Echo method over faculty-designed items and items developed by students without prompts. The Echo-generated items also exhibited higher test–retest reliability than items generated in other ways.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching of PsychologySame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207