Student Perceptions About Their General Learning Outcomes
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
Aggregate survey responses collected from students are commonly used by universities to compare effective educational practices across program majors, and to make high-stakes decisions about the effectiveness of programs. Yet if there is too much heterogeneity among student responses within programs, the program-level averages may not appropriately represent student-level outcomes, and any decisions made based on these averages may be erroneous. Findings revealed that survey items regarding students’ perceived general learning outcomes could be appropriately aggregated to the program level for 4th-year students in the study but not for 1st-year students. Survey items concerning the learning environment were not valid for either group when aggregated to the program level. This study demonstrates the importance of considering the multilevel nature of survey results and determining the multilevel validity of program-level interpretations prior to making any conclusions based on aggregate student responses. Implications for institutional effectiveness research are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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