The good and bad of an online asynchronous general education course: Students’ perceptions
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
The pandemic resulted in many courses being shifted to online delivery, but some courses are designed as online courses from their conception. Courses intentionally designed for online delivery should be well-received by students, but it is not clear which aspects of courses students find particularly appealing and unappealing. We examined students’ perceptions of one such online asynchronous course in psychology in order to better understand students’ preferences in terms of specific course elements. Students were asked to identify what they particularly liked and disliked about the course in two open-ended questions. Responses were then coded to quantify the frequency of each aspect of the course. An inductive and latent approach to coding was used, with codes being used to develop themes based on the underlying meaning of the text. Overall, students identified few negative aspects about the course. They particularly enjoyed the specific psychology content, format, and structure of the course, that it related to their real lives, and the flexibility provided by the asynchronous nature. The hope is that this information can be used to improve this particular course as well as inform instructor decision-making related to the design of online asynchronous courses in general.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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