We Want to be More Involved: Student Perceptions of Students as Partners Across the Degree Program Curriculum
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
Engaging students-as-partners is gaining momentum in the higher education sector. This study explores undergraduate students’ perceptions of how involved they were in partnership activities across their degree programs, and whether this matched their desired level of involvement in such practices. Analysis of a quantitative study of 268 students showed statistically significant differences between perceived levels of importance and involvement for all the partnership practices (n=18) investigated in our survey. These results highlight that the students in this study want to be more substantially involved in partnership practices across their degree program. We argue against the consumerist rhetoric about the role of students as passive learners and advocate for greater inclusion of partnership activities that foster active student participation in shaping the university curricula. We discuss implications for Students as Partners in relation to the progressive development of university curricula and assessment practices along with future research directions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 it