Frequency, topic, and preferences: Tracking student engagement with several modalities of student–instructor contact in a first‐year course
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
Meaningful student-instructor interactions during an undergraduate degree course can have important effects on student learning. The format by which those interactions are made possible can vary greatly. We investigated the preferred modality of contact and students' reasons for contact across several modalities in a first-year biology course. We tracked student-instructor contact for two-course instructors who team teach collaboratively (rather than sequentially) across two-course sections. Both instructors had identical scores on student evaluations of approachability. Student-instructor contact was facilitated using five 'student hour' modalities: (a) in office by appointment, (b) 1 h per week, in office drop in, (c) 1 h per week, virtual chat, (d) by email, (e) 10 min immediately after class. Though email was the preferred method of contact, the period immediately following the class instruction was the most popular of the face-to-face options. We note significant differences in the distribution of workload across the two instructors and make recommendations for increasing the accessibility of student-instructor contact and for equity in workload to support student learning.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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