Characteristics and activities of teachers on distance learning programs that affect their ratings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of teachers’ ratings on distance learning undergraduate study programs: 7,156 students enrolled in traditional and 528 students enrolled in distance learning studies took part in the evaluation questionnaire, assessing 71 teachers. The data were collected from the Moodle platform and from the Singidunum University information system, and then analysed with SPSS statistical software. The parameters considered as potentially affecting teacher ratings are: number of teachers engaged in a particular course, total number of courses in which the teacher is engaged, teacher’s gender and age, total number of the available resources, and so forth. The results imply that scores assigned to individual teachers are consistent in both traditional and distance learning programs. The average rate was perceived to be lower when there were several teachers in a single course; such an effect was enhanced in cases where there was a significant age discrepancy among them. The other factors considered did not show a significant association with teacher ratings. Students’ main remarks about the work of the teachers have been summarised at the end of this paper. Possible explanations and implications of the results are discussed and recommendations are given.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".