Effectiveness of Full (Comprehensive) Preparatory Units for College Study Abroad Field Trips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that students are likely to experience novelty (unfamiliarity) at field trip locations, resulting in extended, unproductive disorientation and inhibition of learning. Carefully-planned preparatory units, delivered prior to the field trip experience, have been shown to mitigate the negative effects of novelty. Anonymous online surveys and written responses to critical thinking questions were used to assess the effect of full (comprehensive) pre-field trip preparatory units on measures potentially influenced by novelty during a 25-day college study abroad program. Survey responses indicate that full preparatory units did not significantly affect student perception of readiness or location familiarity. While few statistically-significant differences were detected, data suggests that full preparatory units probably enhanced student satisfaction with the field trip experience and fostered better performance on critical thinking assessments. These findings support the conclusion that full preparatory units were, on the whole, more beneficial to learning during study abroad field trips than were minimal preparatory units. Findings also suggest that college students may not suffer the negative effects of novelty as intensely as younger students and that the physical size and complexity of the field trip location may reduce student confidence in navigating the location and slow student completion of on-location tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".