Students’ Perceptions of Teaching and Learning Practices: A Principal Component Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students’ attendance and engagement with teaching and learning practices is perceived as a critical element for academic performance. Even with stipulated attendance policies, students still choose not to engage. The study employed a principal component analysis to analyze first- and second-year students’ perceptions of the importance of the 12 teaching and learning practices used in the Economics modules. The results showed that first year students perceive lecturer consultation, ADO consultation, and revision classes as the most beneficial practices for their academic performance. Second-year students recognize interactive group learning practices as most beneficial for their academic performance; they also perceive weekly tutorials, PowerPoint lectures, small group tutorials, and revision classes as contributing the most to academic performance. Self-study and e-learning are perceived as the least beneficial by both streams of students. The main conclusion from this study was that first-year students are more likely to be solitary learners and prefer teaching and learning practices that involve one-on-one interaction with the instructor. On the other hand, second-year students tend to be more social learners, preferring teaching and learning practices that are in a group setup. This is a possible explanation of why they do not attend or engage with some teaching and learning practices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".