MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149796802 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.753

Evaluation of an undergraduate physics programme of Indira Gandhi National Open University: A case study

2009· article· en· W2149796802 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceAttritionHigher educationPresentation (obstetrics)Medical educationOpen universitySustainabilityMathematics educationDistance educationPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The undergraduate science programme was launched at the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in 1991-92 with an enrolment of 1,210 students. The programme was well received, and enrolments increased over the years. However, the success rates have not kept pace with enrolment. 
 
 In this paper, the authors report the results of an evaluation of the undergraduate Physics programme at IGNOU. The evaluation, the first of its type for this programme, adapted the major tenets of the CIPP model. The findings are based on the responses from a randomly chosen sample of 509 learners across India. The methods employed for the study include records, document, and database analysis, surveys, and case studies. 
 
 Although the University has enhanced access to higher science education, the attrition rate is high (73%), and the success rate is low. The authors recommend that the University review and reorient its strategies for providing good quality, learner-centred higher education in science subjects. The programme should address the concerns of the learners about the effectiveness of the student support systems, the difficulty level, and the learner-friendliness of study materials with the goal of achieving long-term sustainability while maintaining parity with the conventional system. The need for improving the presentation of the courses and simplifying the mathematical details is emphasised.

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 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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.195 · 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