MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158216014 · doi:10.5539/hes.v2n3p55

Comparing Ratings: In-class (paper) vs. Out of Class (online) Student Evaluations

2012· article· en· W2158216014 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ronald Mau, Rose Opengart

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Promotion (chess)Higher educationMerit payMathematics educationSet (abstract data type)PsychologyOnline assessmentClass sizeMedical educationComputer sciencePolitical scienceFormative assessmentEconomicsMedicineIncentive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are used by institutions of higher learning in the tenure and promotion process and in awarding merit pay increases. The trend at some institutions has been towards using an online student assessment instrument (SAI) in lieu of the traditional paper –based, in-class assessment. This study examines the difference in student evaluations in two contexts; online and paper-based, in a finance course taught to non-finance majors. The evidence strongly indicates faculty receives higher evaluations using a paper-based instrument administered during class than with an online assessment instrument which students complete on their own time.

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)0.003
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 score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207