MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378472575 · doi:10.5430/jct.v12n3p179

The Relationship between Course Evaluation and Academic Achievement of University Students Using Latent Profile Analysis

2023· article· en· W4378472575 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationClass (philosophy)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted with the purpose of deriving a heterogeneous potential profile through the results of university lecture evaluation, which is students' perception of class and the product of professor-student interaction in the classroom, and identified the factors that affect it. In addition, the degree of learning flow for each potential profile was investigated and the difference was verified. For the analysis, 83,069 cases were used because of the university A course evaluation organized in the second semester of 2020, and a total of 12,919 subjects were studied. As a result of analyzing the aspects of course evaluation through class plan, content delivery, communication, response, and evaluation system, that were the sub-factors of course evaluation, the miscellaneous material profiles were classified in four. It was named as the upper group. As factors determining the latent profile using physiological data analysis. It was discovered that significant differences existed between student features (grade, major field), professor features (position), and lecture variables (category of accomplishment, lecture size). Students with lesser grades have a greater chance of succeeding quickly in the top group than do those in the humanities and social sciences, science, or engineering professions. The likelihood of being in the upper group in a course assessment as well as the likelihood of being in the upper group with higher course evaluation outcomes for general education lectures as opposed to major lectures and smaller lecture sizes increases with decreasing professor status. The level of academic obligation was then examined by potential profile based on the course evaluation outline, and the results revealed that the greater the course evaluation result, the greater the level of educational obligation. This is a significant study because it examines the variables that affect the outcomes of the university's course evaluations, which are done at the end of every semester, as well as the relationship between the outcomes of the course evaluations and academic commitment. This study established a scientific basis for colleges to prepare measures to improve the quality of education through lecture evaluation and emphasized the importance of preparing concrete measures to improve students' learning outcomes in college education.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.315 · 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