Satisfaction Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Two Models of Specialty-Oriented Career Planning Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is a two-semester experimental program that uses Freshman’s “Finance Career Planning” of the undergraduate program of the finance department of the National Taipei University of Business (NTUB) as the experimental curriculum. This research explores and analyzes two models of “Specialty-oriented career planning course” to see if there is a difference in students’ course satisfaction. The features of the second model include specialty-oriented lectures by finance alumni and assignments requiring the interviewing of upperclassmen, in addition to studying career counseling theory and specialty-topic content sharing. This research finds that there is a significant difference in students’ course satisfaction within the two models of “specialty-oriented career planning course”, wherein the second model is considered better than the first model, and the average scores of the five indicators of students’ course satisfaction have all reached a significant level (the richness of course content, the clarity of lecturer’s conveyance, the level of personal learning acquirement, the relevancy of course content to the topic, the design of course process and activities). This research proposes the following recommendations, in accordance with the research findings, that institutions of higher education should offer practical and feasible specialty-oriented career planning courses.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".