Assessing Computer Use and Perceived Course Effectiveness in Post-Secondary Education in an American/Canadian Context
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 research is to investigate the relationship between computer technology's role and students' perceptions about course effectiveness. Students from two universities (one Canadian, n = 1465; one American, n = 831) completed a 71–item questionnaire addressing different aspects of their learning experience in a given course. Factor analysis revealed a 3–factor solution: “course-structure,” “active-learning and time-on-task,” and “computer-use.” Regression analysis indicated that the 3 variables are predictive of perceived course effectiveness at both sites, with the presence of an interaction between location and “computer-use” and “course-structure” on students' perceptions about course effectiveness. Findings reveal that student perceptions directly reflect the 14 APA learner-centered principles on which the instrument was based.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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