MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910805985 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13006

Effects of a Fall Reading Break on First Year Students' Course Performance in Programming

2018· article· en· W2910805985 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Carol Hulls, Chris Rennick, Mary Ann Robinson, Samar Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFall of manOddsPsychologyLogistic regressionMedical educationMedicineMathematicsStatisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a mixed methods study into the effects of a fall break on course performance in a first semester programming course in Mechatronics Engineering at the University of Waterloo.In 2016, the University of Waterloo instituted a two-day fall break immediately following Thanksgiving Monday, on a three-year pilot. The stated rationale for this break was to address student wellness and mental health issues, especially as this pertains to students transitioning from high school and their “looming midterms”. As of October 2017, there are now 20 institutions in Ontario with a fall break of between one five days in length after the Thanksgiving holiday.A linear regression model was calculated to examine the impact of the fall break on students. This model predicts students who regretted how they spent the fall break will earn 6% less in their first programming course. A logistic regression model was calculated which predicted inexperienced, struggling students have the highest odds of regretting how they spent the break.Three focus groups were conducted with students who experienced the fall break in fall of 2016 or 2017. These focus groups examined student perceptions of the fall break, how they recalled using their time during the break, and their reflections on the br

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationFrench-language works237,207