Évaluation de la qualité de l'enseignement par les étudiantes et étudiants : qualités psychométriques et comparaison des conditions de passation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mots CLs : valuation de l'enseignement, modalits, en ligne vs papier, validit Les valuations de l'enseignement par les tudiants et tudiantes sont utilises des fins acadmiques et formatives, mais sont galement voques d'une manire sommative lors de dcisions lies la carrire professorale.Dans le cadre de la prsente recherche, deux objectifs sont poursuivis.Le premier objectif est de dterminer les qualits psychomtriques de l'instrument utilis l'Universit du Qubec Rimouski.Avec l'avnement des technologies de l'information et de la communication, les conditions dans lesquelles se droulent ces valuations ont t modifies.Le second objectif est de vrifier les impacts de la modalit de passation en ligne vs papier sur les qualits psychomtriques de l'instrument.Le corpus de donnes est constitu des valuations ralises durant les annes 2007-2008 (20 245 valuations) et 2010-2011 (16 432 valuations). Les rsultats attestent qu'un modle hirarchique dcrit mieux la structuration du questionnaire que des modles alternatifs, que la modalit de passation a une influence sur le taux de rponses et, dans certains cas, sur le taux de satisfaction des enseignements, mais qu'elle n'influence ni la fiabilit ni la dimensionnalit des valuations. Les implications de ces rsultats sont discutes.KEY WorDs: students'evaluations of teaching effectiveness, online vs paper processes, validity students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness are used for academic and formative purposes, but are also sometimes evoked, in a summative way, for some faculty career decisions.In the present study, two main objectives are pursued.The first objective is to determine the psychometric properties of the instrument in use at the Universit du Qubec Rimouski.With the advent of information and communication technologies, the conditions in which the evaluations take place
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".