MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001247459 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13865

PILOT OF A SERIES OF ONLINE RESOURCES TO HELP STUDENTS TRANSITION TO FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING

2019· article· en· W3001247459 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Peter Ostafichuk, Carol P. Jaeger, Quentin Golsteyn, Susan Nesbit

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentivePsychologyTransition (genetics)Mathematics educationClass (philosophy)PerceptionMedical educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transitioning from high school to university can be a difficult time for students. A significant element in this transition is related to heightened selfresponsibility and self-regulation for one’s own learning. A series of eight online screencasts (consisting of narrated video with activities and quiz questions) was created and introduced at the University of British Columbia in 2018 as a pilot project. The goal was to help first year engineering students with their academic transition by providing evidence-based principles of effective study strategies and attitudes. Materials were delivered in the academic setting, rather than through traditional orientation and support channels, as a way to elevate this content and to reach as many students as possible. Materials were optional but a small grade incentive was included. Students appear to have found the resources beneficial as roughly half of the class viewed at least half of the screencasts. The opportunity to earn a small course bonus mark was cited as a key incentive, but approximately half of students identified academic and university transition benefits as their primary reasons for viewing. A course survey conducted five months after the final screencast in the series revealed positive student attitudes towards the materials, with approximately 70% of students identifying the materials as helpful or very helpful. In addition, students who had viewed a particular screencast gave significantly more favourable responses in prompts regarding perceptions of effective study practices. Finally, a positive correlation was observed between the number of screencasts viewed and course final exam grade (+0.8% on the final per screencast viewed). Overall, the results of this pilot suggest the use of online screencast materials to aid students in the transition to university is effective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207