Will that be on the exam? - Student perceptions of memorization and success in engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In engineering, it is important for students to develop strong problem analysis skills; however, this skill development may be hindered by a reliance on memorization. In this study, a survey was used to investigate undergraduate engineering student perspectives towards their curriculum and memorization and their styles using Bigg’s revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F).The majority of the participants are characterized as students having good study habits, a deep motivation, and deep strategies when approaching their education. They generally recognize the decreasing importance of memorization as they progress in the engineering curriculum. There is also a fairly large subset of students that are classified as deep motivation but surface strategy. Most students believe that at least 50% of an exam should contain questions similar sample problems or assignment questions and surface learners tend to perceive exams to be unfair if too many questions are dissimilar. There was no observed correlation between grades and the R-SPQ-2F results in the courses examined. These results tend to support the hypothesis that surface strategies, including memorization, are being employed by undergraduate students as a means of obtaining adequate performance in lieu of problem analysis skill development.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".