Comparison between Science and Technology and Social Science Students’ Understanding towards General Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amid the fact that general studies have been regarded as a holistic education and that they are capable in producing all-rounders, in Malaysia specifically we have only met with the paucity of research that has automatically impeded any validation of the fact. In UKM for instance, the concept of general studies begins simultaneously with the establishment, but just how far it is effective is open to debate. In generality, it can be said that both students and the faculty have underestimated the significance of general study courses. The emphasis on the broadening of this general studies in principle is consistent with the aspirations of liberal education at the initial phase of the establishment of the UKM, which is towards creating graduates who can think laterally and in balance. This study seeks to analyse the views of UKM students on how they understand the philosophy and importance of general studies. This study involves 400 respondents who were chosen among third year students who have registered for the courses. The study data were obtained through a questionnaire using the SPSS program. Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean, cross-tabulation statistics, and correlation coefficient were employed to explain respondents backgrounds and assess students’ views on generic skill courses. The study outcome demonstrates that students have regarded highly over the generic skill courses, in general. There has been an insignificant difference between social science and science and technology students. Based on the study findings, several suggestions have been put forth for the improvement of generic skill courses so that it will produce students who have generic skills needed for the workplace market.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".