The Anatomy of Persistence: Remediation and Science Identity Perceptions in Undergraduate Anatomy and Physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduate Anatomy and Physiology (A&P) courses are gateway courses nursing and allied health students must pass before progressing through their academic programs. Many students need to retake the course to receive grades acceptable to progress in their programs, but identifying students at risk of failure may help instructors extend support. In this study, we examined self-efficacy and science identity as potential predictors of student success in these courses, and, by extension, a potential way to identify students at risk of failing. We found that science identity, and not self-efficacy nor completion of science prerequisite courses, explained the most variance when predicting A&P final grade in hierarchical regression. Additionally, we interviewed a purposive sample of students retaking the course to explore their experiences and perceptions of these constructs in A&P over multiple enrollments. Students retaking the course described their experiences of being “biology people” in their interviews, further suggesting that having a science identity is relevant to A&P students and may be leveraged to support students in A&P contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".