The Relationship between Students' Course Perception and their Approaches to Studying in Undergraduate Science Courses: A Canadian experience
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
Research on students' approaches to learning in higher education has consistently demonstrated strong relationships between approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning environment. The vast majority of these studies have been carried out with Australian and British students. Using the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) and the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), this study investigated these relationships with a large sample of Canadian undergraduates. The factor structure of the ASSIST was confirmed at the main scale level. The factor structure of the CEQ was largely confirmed, though some small changes were noted. Previous findings of significant correlations between approaches and CEQ scales were supported. The strongest relationships were found between heavy workload/inappropriate assessment and surface approach, and between generic skills and deep approach. Consistent with other studies, age was found to be a significant variable with regard to approaches. Implications for the practice of higher education staff development are discussed.
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 | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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