Student Engagement of First Year Students at the University of Calgary in Qatar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to examine the University of Calgary in Qatar’s (UCQ) nursing program to discover, through an analysis of the experiences of first-year undergraduate students in the program, factors that promote and hinder student engagement. The aim of this study is to suggest how it may be possible to better nurture, support, and promote student engagement in first-year students. From a constructivist–interpretive paradigm, a qualitative dimension approach was used for this project. A purposeful sampling technique was employed to select first-year undergraduate students. Furthermore, interviews were conducted to serve as data sources.The interview data were analyzed using a thematic analysis methodology. Five major themes were identified as factors impacting engagement in first-year undergraduate students. The first theme was the importance of personality development and emotional support. The second was the role of motivation, under which there were five subthemes: giving back to society, giving back to Qatar, family expectations, personal growth, and development and recognition. The third was teaching and learning, a major factor impacting student engagement, and three subthemes were identified: the course material, instructor/student relationships, and teaching strategies. The fourth was institutional (internal) factors, and four internal factors were highlighted: language, student counseling support, the Learning Commons, and financial support. The fifth was the impact peers (other UCQ students) had on student engagement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".