MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2701893690 · doi:10.22329/celt.v10i0.4734

The Development and Delivery of a Multidisciplinary Research Course for First-Year International Science Students

2017· article· en· W2701893690 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Priyanka Lekhi, Meghan Allen, Fok-Shuen Leung, Brett Gilley, Georg W. Rieger, Joanne Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipCurriculumMultidisciplinary approachClass (philosophy)Undergraduate researchProcess (computing)Mathematics educationPsychologyMedical educationPedagogyEngineering ethicsComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students who engage in undergraduate research experiences acquire many benefits, including an understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed, recognition that knowledge can be complex and uncertain, and the habit of viewing knowledge critically. This paper describes a first-year two-course sequence that provides multidisciplinary opportunities for international science students to engage in the research process and present at a student-led research conference. We describe course goals and structure, and discuss whether the goals were attained using instructor reflections, student performance, and student survey data. We also evaluate the impact of changes to the curriculum between Year 1 and Year 2. In both years, we found that students engaged meaningfully with the research process and began to understand how scientific knowledge is created. We also found that a modular model with front-end support worked better for instructors as compared to a continuous individualized project mentorship model. This modular approach involved structured pre- and post-class assignments within discipline-specific themes containing examples of the research process embedded into the discipline. These discipline-specific modules were followed by modules covering broader research process themes. We encourage instructors who are thinking of delivering a similar research-based course for first-year students to provide support via example research questions and other example templates for student submissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicInnovative Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207