MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288446468 · doi:10.5539/ies.v15n4p108

Internal School Quality Assurance Practices and Undergraduate Students’ Attitude Towards Academic Activities: A Case of Public Universities in Cross River State, Nigeria

2022· article· en· W4288446468 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Ekpenyong Asuquo, Chuktu Onyinye

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaQuality assuranceMedical educationNull hypothesisLikert scalePopulationPsychologyQuality (philosophy)CurriculumData collectionPedagogyMedicineSociologySocial scienceMarketingMathematicsEnvironmental healthService (business)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined internal school quality assurance practices and undergraduate students’ attitude towards academic activities in public universities in Cross River State, Nigeria. The study was guided by three null hypotheses and the design adopted was ex-post facto research design. The population of the study was made up of all the regular undergraduate students in their third year of study in the two public universities (University of Calabar and Cross River University of Technology) in Cross River State, Nigeria. The researchers used convenience sampling technique in selecting a sample of 2,500 students from the population which cut across the two public universities in the study area. Internal Quality Assurance Practices and Undergraduate Students’ Attitude Towards Academic Activities Questionnaire (IQAPUSATAAQ) with Cronbach reliability reliabilities of .81, .86, .83, and .80 was the instrument used for data collection. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was the statistical tool used in testing the hypotheses at .05 level of significant. The results of the study revealed significant relationship between school quality assurance approaches (maintenance of facilities, curriculum implementation, examinations administration) and students’ attitude towards academic activities. It was recommended among others that available teaching and learning facilities at the disposal of the management of universities should be maintained and made functional for the benefit of the students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207