Mixed methods development of a survey instrument for cataloguing student practices and perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can outside-the-classroom agencies (e.g., universities, school districts) contribute to effective schooling in terms of student self-development? How can external initiatives be designed, implemented, and institutionalized to lead students to change existing classroom practice? As a first step in answering these questions, a survey instrument was developed to map baseline and post-initiative perceptions of teacher practice, student responses, and self-initiated practices in various course and lesson situations in schools in Newfoundland Labrador, Canada. The mixed methods program of research included an Exploration Phase with major projects entitled Teacher Description of Practice (n = 80), Student Description of Practice (n = 60), and Student Journal of Teacher Practice (n = 75), and a Development Phase with projects entitled Student Explanation of Teacher Description (n = 60), the Development Study (n = 60), and the Final Survey (n = 180). The teacher project, for example, collected 80 teacher descriptions of practice in 16 long- and short-term situations as well as perceptions of effectiveness. A website was developed for project administration and to accept data entry from participants representing 30 geographically separate schools. Qualitative data analysis consisted of text mining, concept mapping, keyword coding, categorization, and theme recognition; quantitative analyses consisted of descriptive statistics, item associations, and reduction of equivalent expressions. Analysis was designed to carry the richness of description through to the Final Survey. Measures of credibility and validity included the mixed method structure, large samples for descriptive research, question duplication, active website administration, pilot groups, member checking, triangulated descriptions, focus groups, case studies, participation across the mixed methods paradigm shift, a study of student misconceptions, and survey redevelopment. The instrument, entitled Student Practice and Perception of Teacher Practice, was included in this work as were descriptions of survey administration and data analyses.
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 | 0.111 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".