INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PERCEPTION OF COLLABORATIVE GROUP EXAMS IN A FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY COURSE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-stage collaborative exams have previously been shown to improve students’ understanding and long-term retention of material, while helping to develop collaborative skills. Very little work has been done, however, on the impact of this practice on international students, who may be faced with particular challenges or contexts.. Building on previous work, the perception of first-year international students in an engineering chemistry course offered as part of the Vantage College Applied Science program at UBC regarding the practice of two-stage exams was assessed before and after participating in one for the first time. Although the experience was overall very positive, and the anticipated difficulties of the midterm seemed to be overestimated, several key challenges must be addressed before deciding whether to continue with this practice as part of this program, namely communication barriers preventing the effective participation of all group members, and a structural competitiveness that may discourage collaboration, both of which are inherent to the Vantage APSC program, as well as frustration associated with mixed technical proficiencies of group members, which is a more typical concern associated with this type of assessment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".