ERIC ED466493: Satisfaction with Learning in Alberta: A Quantitative Report. Final.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In February 2001, a survey was conducted to determine satisfaction of stakeholders in Alberta's learning system. Telephone interviews were held with random samples of: parents, high school students, parents of children with severe special needs, parents of students with mild or moderate special needs, the general public, adult learners, and school non-attendees. Approximately 4,000 people were selected for each of these segments, and response rates were high. Survey responses were generally similar to those of the previous year, although when there were differences, the differences tended to reflect increases in satisfaction. Overall satisfaction with Alberta's learning system continued to remain high--similar to the levels reported in 2000. Parents of students with special needs were not generally as satisfied as parents of students in the general school population, but they did think the system offered high quality learning opportunities. The vast majority of parents and high school students agreed that teachers are using appropriate strategies, and are setting appropriate learning expectations and standards. High school students and adult learners thought that the system was preparing them for the employment world. Overall, those who participated in the learning system reported higher satisfaction with receiving value for money than those who did not. Satisfaction that the schools are both safe and caring continued to be high for parents and students. Five appendixes contain the interview instruments, profiles of respondent groups, discussion of ease of access to special needs services, and a table of confidence bounds. (Contains 15 figures and 41 tables.) (SLD)
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.140 | 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".