Beyond Average Information: How Q‐Methodology Enhances Course Evaluations in Anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Course evaluations can be used for curriculum improvement and have the potential to better the student learning experience. However, because most are based on Likert scales and open-ended feedback, understanding diversity in student opinion and uncovering optimal options for course change and improvement are often difficult. Alternatively, Q-methodology can be used to investigate patterns of thought within a group and may offer greater potential for course reform. This manuscript offers a tutorial-based explanation of the three components of Q-methodology studies (1) survey instrument development, (2) data collection, and (3) analysis and interpretation, then demonstrates, via case study, the use of Q-methodology to evaluate a fourth-year undergraduate pathoanatomy course. The goal of this article is to enable the reader to broadly apply Q-methodology in other courses to gain insight and feedback beyond that offered by traditional Likert scale methods. As demonstrated through the pathoanatomy case study, Q-methodology highlights groups (denoted by factors) of like-minded students that share opinions, preferences, and values. Overall, Q-methodology analyses support course instructors in identifying areas of course strength and improvement in an evidence-based way. This alternative to traditional Likert scales represents a promising solution to ongoing course evaluation limitations.
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 | 0.133 | 0.279 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".