Effects of a Workshop on Perceptions of Journaling in University Outdoor Education Field Courses: An Exploratory Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate how participation in a journaling workshop influenced students' perceptions of journaling in university outdoor experiential education field courses. A total of 62 post secondary students from two selected university programs in North America participated in the study and were randomly assigned to either a control group or experimental group. Immediately before and after their field course, participants in both groups completed a quantitative questionnaire containing 38 questions exploring their perceptions of journaling. Participants in the experimental group participated in a 45 minute workshop before their field course providing them with strategies to journal effectively. Results showed students in the experimental group were influenced by their participation in the journaling workshop. The workshop had the most influence on female students who had little experience journaling. This article concludes with a discussion of additional factors that might influence student experiences with, and perceptions of, journaling. The findings in this exploratory study set the stage for more ambitious explorations of the factors that influence student perceptions of journaling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it