Wish Poems of Undergraduate Students Related to Physical Environment of Educational Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is seen that studies on learning spaces in higher education institutions are very few in the literature. However, spaces have the power to affect behaviors and interactions with others. This study aims to determine the wishes of university students regarding the physical environment. For this purpose, it is planned to determine the missing things in the existing physical environment according to the “wish poems” of undergraduate students and their related wishes. Accordingly, the sample of the study consisted of 211 participants among the students of the faculty of education at a state university. In the study, for the purpose of revealing the views of the undergraduate students on the physical environment of their school, they were given a semi-structure, open-ended question format as “I wish there were … in my classroom/faculty/campus” and asked to write down 3 wishes regarding the physical environment. The obtained data were analyzed by using the content analysis method. In the study, different numbers of conceptual categories were reached under each sub-title with the method of coding and imaging. At the end of the study, 578 clear responses were obtained, and after examination, these responses were gathered under 35 conceptual categories in total. The categories about which the students had the most wishes were related to the furniture and equipment in their classrooms (f=51, 26.2%), social (f=33, 18.5%) and scientific (f=32, 17.9%) areas at the faculty and green spaces at the campus (f=61, 29.6%). Consequently, as pioneers of social and scientific change, it is important for universities to reevaluate their existing physical facilities based on the wishes of students in terms of feeding their innovative instincts.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".