Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduate programs in the United States range from locally funded, two-year community colleges, to state and federally funded universities, as well as private, tuition-based institutions. Assumingly most programs attempt to facilitate a relevant and balanced curriculum that prepares students for the general and perhaps specific obstacles that they will experience in a professional environment. Successful curricula may also attempt to prepare students for the social, cultural and economic challenges that they will experience in their personal life. The question of how various programs implement this fundamental yet daunting task has been in the past and assuredly will remain a part of academia, research studies and discussions. In general, these debates relate to the breadth of a program. However, within this arena, the pertinent factor is a program’s length—the number of credit hours congruent to or with the duration of a quarter or a semester that are required to achieve a particular degree. This aspect may be of significance to prospective students, their parents, spouses and other individuals who potentially hold a role in the selection of the student’s educational process and future. Undeniable factors in the decision-process include admission’s work, the program itself, the degree offering, the reputation of the institution, cost of credit hours, the school’s physical location and its supporting environment—including housing accommodation, libraries, activity centers, proximity to family and workplace. Regardless of the various options, some individuals make the decision to enroll in an 11-week quarter-based educational model. The Art Institutes utilize this educational model at their thirty-five locations across the United States and two facilities in Canada. This system leads us to the question: do eleven weeks provide sufficient time for a student to interpret, analyze and demonstrate the course objectives? With an effort to advocate open-minded and non-conformist responses questions relating to this topic were asked in an informal setting—to new and experienced instructors who currently teach full or part-time at The Art Institute of Dallas. All possess a Masters or terminal degree in their fields of instruction and have been teaching in higher education for five or more years. Data from these conversations was gathered and has become the essence of this paper. Readers may assume current faculty advocate this model in order to maintain active employment. However, those assumptions are erroneous. The relevance of this research is important to prospective students, parents and all the individuals involved in higher education across the continuum of five- to seventeen-week terms. Those individuals can ‘hear’ the pros and cons (if any) of such a model from instructors themselves. This inquiry contributes to the conversations and value as found and defined by instructors. Via their research, the authors hope to facilitate a dialogue that advocates/or does not advocate the institution of an 11-week educational model amongst all the interested individuals in higher education. A deeper level of understanding and respect for instructors who successfully teach in quarter-based educational models can be obtained. Administrators may find value in this research for economic and accounting reasons. Both the authors clearly understand that the ‘instructor’ is only one component of any successful educational model. Opinions from others such as the students and alumni are also of immense value. These individuals will be addressed in their further studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".