Facilitating Learning and Research Engagement of 4th year Undergraduate Students: the Outcomes of Student Self-Assessment Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching faculty and a liaison librarian began exploring ways to facilitate undergraduate student engagement in research, in the context of a 4th year research seminar course. The course was a long established course, ―Seminar in Foods and Nutrition,‖ in the Department of Human Nutritional Sciences, University of Manitoba, Canada. The class was small, and eight students completed the course during the 2014 Winter semester. The Research Skills Development Framework (RSD), which was developed at Adelaide University, Australia, was adopted as a conceptual model for collaboratively reorganizing and realigning learning and instructional activities. The RSD framework was very useful in maintaining the shared interest among the collaborators in facilitating student learning. An online survey with 19 Likert-scale questions was administered identically at the beginning and end of the course to measure student self-assessment of research skills. The survey results showed that the efforts in supporting student learning paid off. There were positive learning outcomes in nine research skill areas, and two additional skill areas showed positive trends. They are all corresponding to information literacy.
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 | 0.039 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".