Appraisal of Managerial Roles of Study Centre Coordinators of College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study assessed how students and course tutors on distance education programmes of the College of DistanceEducation, University of Cape Coast appraised their study centre coordinators’ performance in terms of humanrelations, behaviour, organising teaching and learning facilities; and handling complaints. This type of appraisal,where students and tutors representing customers and subordinates respectively, is usually referred to as the360-feedback method in human resource management. Concurrent embedded study design from the pragmatists’epistemic approach was adopted for the study. Simple random and purposive sampling technique were respectivelyused to sample 1228 final year students and 217 course tutors from 53 study centres; and five coordinators from eachof the three Zones across the ten regions of Ghana for triangulation purposes. Data was analysed with descriptivestatistics, independent t-test and a one-way between-groups analysis of variance. The study found that coordinators’behavior and human relations were rated higher as compared to complaints handling and organising study centreactivities. This was blamed on lack of capacity to address most of students and tutors challenges; and teaching loadof coordinators. It was recommended that the management of College of Distance Education should increase thecapacity of coordinators for district and regional study centres as well as the Zones in terms of resources andtechnology to be able to take immediate steps to solve students and tutors’ complaints.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".