MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060845473 · doi:10.1080/02602930701772754

Telling the second half of the story: linking academic development to student experience of learning

2008· article· en· W2060845473 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn McAlpine, Gloria Berdugo Oviedo, Andrea Emrick

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyValue (mathematics)Higher educationPedagogyMathematics educationComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common measures used by academic developers, e.g. lecturer satisfaction with workshops, are necessary but insufficient indicators of impact since they tell only the first half of the story. Documenting whether positive responses translate into teaching actions that influence students is the second half of the story. In this study, the project team undertook to document this second half: the influence of a workshop for lecturers on student experience of learning in courses designed during the workshop. This paper describes the results of the study and also examines the implications – the difficulties and value of reconciling the desirable with the do‐able in undertaking studies such as this.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.259
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207