Students' perceptions of effective teaching in higher education
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
Using a unique online approach to data gathering, students were asked to isolate the characteristics they believe are essential to effective teaching. An open-ended online survey was made available to over 17,000 graduate and undergraduate students at Memorial University of Newfoundland during the winter semester of 2008. Derived from this rich data is a set of student definitions that describe nine characteristics and identify instructor behaviours that demonstrate effectiveness in teaching. The survey also takes into account the opinions of students studying both on-campus and at a distance via the web, with the intention of determining if the characteristics of effective teaching in an online environment are different from those in the traditional face-to-face setting. Students identified nine behaviours that are characteristic of effective teaching in both on-campus and distance courses. Instructors who are effective teachers are respectful of students, knowledgeable, approachable, engaging, communicative, organized, responsive, professional, and humorous. Students indicated that the nine characteristics were consistent across modes of delivery. Respondents to the distance portion of the survey, however, did place different emphasis from the on-campus responses on the significance of each characteristic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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