What Do College Students Really Want When it Comes to Their Instructors’ Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Their Teaching?
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
In fall 2014 we surveyed 311 students who had been enrolled at least one semester in two Canadian junior/community colleges. We inquired about their views, experiences, and recommendations about ICTs used in their college by their instructors in face-to-face classes in various programs of study. Results show that students consistently preferred that their instructors use ICTs in their teaching, including lectures as well as individual and group work in class. Students in all programs liked most forms of commonly used ICTs used by faculty in their teaching (e.g., PowerPoint, videos, CMS features). However, they disliked digital textbooks, online courses, collaborative work online, discussion forums, blogs, chat rooms, instant messaging, and all forms of communication using social networking when used by faculty (e.g., Facebook). Students’ views about what ICT-related experiences worked especially well and poorly for them are presented, along with their recommendations about what colleges and instructors need to change.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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