Student confidence in learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: what helped and what hindered?
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
When COVID-19 struck, higher education scrambled. Teaching and learning swerved abruptly to emergency remote instruction. For many students, the rapid refashioning of courses of instruction meant suddenly confronting new, radically different learning scenarios. We know relatively little about what enabled or constrained students' confidence in their ability to learn as a consequence. Using questionnaire responses from undergraduate students (N = 3806) who were studying at nine different institutions in six different countries on four different continents, we examine factors that helped, and hindered, students' confidence in their learning ability. We investigate a range of factors, including technology, living circumstances, communications with professors and peers, course attributes, as well as personal student circumstances and characteristics. Our results demonstrate that communication, both with peers and professors, was especially associated with the confidence students expressed in their ability to learn under conditions of emergency remote instruction. Household living conditions and technology also were important correlates.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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