UK Engagement Survey 2014: Full report of the cognitive testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has stressed the important links between educational gain and the pedagogical practices undertaken within institutions (Gibbs 2010, 2012). This led to a Higher Education Academy (HEA)-funded two-year pilot project exploring the viability of using items derived from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the UK, as well as piloting new UK-specific items. NSSE aims to evaluate student engagement with activities likely to enhance their learning outcomes (Kuh 2001) and was established in 2000 in North America and 484,919 students completed NSSE in 2014. Items from NSSE have been cognitively tested (Kuh 2001; Ouimet et al. 2001), but not extensively in a UK context. NSSE has been adopted in many different international contexts, including Canada, Australia, South Africa, China and Ireland (Coates and McCormick 2014). This document reports on the cognitive testing of the 2014 pilot but draws extensively on the pilot project and cognitive testing from 2013. For the initial 2013 pilot HEA project, modifications were made to selected NSSE items to reflect the different national context, leading to the 14 items used in the first pilot of the UK Engagement Survey questionnaire. Cognitive testing was required to evaluate the robustness and validity of these items in the UK. A report provided an evaluation of student understanding and validity of the Student Engagement items derived from NSSE, across a range of institutional, subject and student characteristics. The results of the 2013 pilot are reported in Buckley (2013), which is available, with the full 2013 cognitive testing report as well as a set of case studies and other supporting resources, at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/nss/engagement_for_enhancement Based on the review of the items, cognitive testing and user feedback, the questions from the 2013 pilot were modified for the 2014 pilot administration. An additional three scales drawn from NSSE were added (covering Reflective and Integrative Learning; Time Spent; and Skills Development). Two new scales were added on Engagement with Research and Formulating and Exploring Questions, leading to 50 items altogether that institutions could use in their own internal surveys (see Version 0 in Appendix 1). During the cognitive testing, an additional scale was piloted, on the theme of Students as Partners, leading to 54-56 items being tested during the cognitive review. During the testing, root questions, item wording, splitting and combining items, and adding new items were explored. The aim of this report is to inform development of the items, institutional understanding of results of the national pilot and to provide a broader context for students’ understanding and interest in student engagement surveys. For the results of the 2014 pilot of the UK Engagement Survey, and information about the sources of the items and scales used, please visit https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/consultancy-services/surveys/ukes/ukes-final-reports
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 | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
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".