Engineering Students’ Performance in Communication Skills Courses: Does Attendance Really Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compulsory attendance in communication skills courses offered at colleges of engineering seems to be a problematic issue for many students because it prevents them from performing well in such courses. Many students believe that time spent on these courses comes at the expense of focusing on core courses and worsens their overall performance in these courses. As such, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between attendance and students’ overall performance in communication skills courses for the sake of providing suggestions that would enhance students’ performance as well as allowing them to allocate more time to the core courses they are enrolled in. Making students’ life easier would not only improve their status at the educational level but would also create a feeling of comfort and satisfaction in their surroundings, particularly among family members and friends. Participants in the study are university students enrolled in the college of engineering at a Middle Eastern university. The study yields significant results showing that compulsory attendance has no significant relationship with students’ overall performance in communication skills courses. Relaxing attendance regulations might provide some margin of freedom for students to focus more on the engineering core courses without compromising their success in communication skills courses. The study provides significant recommendations that stakeholders can utilize to motivate students to perform well in communication skills courses while addressing any concerns they might have regarding the core courses they are enrolled in.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".