Investigating the Alignment of Intended, Enacted, and Perceived Learning Outcomes in an Authentic Research-Based Science Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the intended, enacted, and perceived curriculum in an authentic research-based science program using curriculum mapping as a tool for analysis. The main research inquiry guiding this study is: How do the students’ perceptions on their achieved learning outcomes in an authentic research-based learning environment align with the intended and enacted outcomes? A mixed method approach was adopted, where the program and its core-courses were mapped from different perspectives. Data on the learning outcomes and perceptions of students learning were collected through questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews from multiple perspectives. Results of the curriculum mapping showed consistency and cogency of program and course-level learning outcomes. Students’ perceptions of their authentic research experiences were well-aligned with the intended and enacted learning outcomes. The results of this study could be used to help other programs implement similar curriculum review approaches in their context.
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.
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 | 0.058 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 it