Student Attitudes Toward Learning Statistics with R
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
Statistics plays an extremely important role within the discipline of psychology, but statistics courses are notoriously unpopular amongst psychology students. We examined attitudes toward statistics and attitudes toward the statistical software package R in both undergraduate and graduate students in psychology across the duration of a statistics course. Participants’ responses were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative techniques. Results demonstrated that students in introductory level courses generally held neutral (not negative) attitudes, but students at higher study levels held somewhat positive attitudes towards R and statistics generally. Qualitative data revealed wide variability in the factors that impacted attitudes toward statistics or R, with common themes such as instructor, perceived difficulty, enjoying or disliking statistics or software, and achieving confidence with statistics or software. While not all students enjoyed learning R, our findings demonstrate that many students enjoyed statistics or R, most students found statistics/R valuable and generally reported feeling competent or confident using it by the end of their course.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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