Evaluation a Career Planning Course with Case-based Teaching Modelon College Students’ Career Decisions and Learning Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the impact of the case-based teaching model on college students' career decision making and learning satisfaction. The study conducted both a pre-test and a post-test on a single group of subjects. Thirty-two freshmen (8 males and 24 females) taking the class “Career Planning in Finance” in the department of finance of a business university. The researcher developed case-based teaching model materials for an 18-week career planning courses in one semester. There are two-hour classes per week for a whole semester. The results are as follows: (1) There are significant differences in the pre-test and the post-test on career decisions measured with career decided scores (t=-4.05, p=0.0028). The differences in career indecision scores are also statistically significant (t=-3.85, p=0.0001); (2) The questionnaire on learning satisfaction reports high scores in general (M=4.73, SD=0.40). Meanwhile, the university’s teaching assessment also indicates high satisfaction in this elective (M=4.89, SD=0.48). Results suggest that college students’ career decision making and learning satisfaction can be increased through their participation in the cased-based career planning courses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".