Fostering A Teaching And Learning Opportunity: Toward Equity In Student Feedback Of Teaching
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
Educators within post-secondary institutions receive input in the form of course evaluations from their students. The aim of receiving student input is to improve the teaching and learning experience for all. There are, however, inherent problems with the current methods of obtaining students' views through course evaluations. In this pilot study, the researchers focused on two problems: universally low response rates of 20% or less of student input in formal course evaluations and the problematic bias associated with anonymous course evaluations. Implementing practices that encourage students to provide course feedback, thus moving away from the term course evaluation was a first step to address these problems. A process was piloted in this study with 16 domestic undergraduate Bachelor of Science students whereby the researchers encouraged reflection, dialogue, and accountability in the new model and compared the differences against the problematic original model of receiving course evaluation input from students.
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 | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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