MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307302852 · doi:10.52041/iase.icots11.t8a2

S-SOMADS: A New Survey to Measure Student Attitudes Toward Data Science

2022· article· en· W4307302852 on OpenAlexaff
April Kerby-Helm, Michael A. Posner, Alana Unfried, Douglas Whitaker, Marjorie Bond, Leyla Batakci, Wendine Bolon

Bibliographic record

VenueBridging the Gap: Empowering and Educating Today’s Learners in Statistics. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Expectancy theoryCategorizationData collectionComputer scienceMathematics educationQuality (philosophy)Measure (data warehouse)Process (computing)Field (mathematics)Survey instrumentPsychologySurvey data collectionData scienceApplied psychologySocial psychologySociologyMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attitudes play an important role in students’ academic achievement and retention, yet we lack quality attitude measurement instruments in the new field of data science. This paper explains the process of creating Expectancy Value Theory-based instruments for introductory, college-level data science courses, including construct development, item creation, and refinement involving content experts. The family of instruments consist of surveys measuring student attitudes, instructor attitudes, and instructor and course characteristics. These instruments will enable data science education researchers to evaluate pedagogical innovations, create course assessments, and measure instructional effectiveness relating to student attitudes. We also present plans for pilot data collection and analyses to verify the categorization of items to constructs, as well as ways in which faculty who teach introductory data science courses can be involved.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.149 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBridging the Gap: Empowering and Educating Today’s Learners in Statistics. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Teaching StatisticsSame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207