Selective Assessment in Introductory Physics Labatorials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this paper, we present a selection methodology in the physics laboratory that lowers student anxiety and is beneficial to the instructors as well. At Mount Royal University, the traditional laboratory experimental exercises were replaced by a new style of laboratory called labatorials. In our previous research work, we found that labatorials integrate communications and discussions in a friendly environment. They decrease students’ anxiety and improve self-confidence. However, there have been some challenges associated with physics labs that are not specific to labatorials such as the final lab grades of students who miss a lab. Phys1201 and Phys1202 courses at MRU are 13-week courses with around 200 first-year students each semester. There are two training sessions for the lab instructors during the first two weeks of the semester to familiarize them with labatorial goals and strategies. Due to the training sessions and to make sure that the topics of the experiments have been covered in the classroom, introductory physics laboratories start the third week of the semester. There is no lab during the reading break at MRU and we are left with 10 weeks to cover 10 labs. A lab instructor cannot control student absences, and students should not be punished for missing a lab due to illness or a family situation. Each introductory physics course is divided into three to four lecture sections and around 15 lab sections each semester. One solution was to provide opportunities for students to go to another lab section when they miss a lab. However, this solution created new challenges for both students and instructors. It was not easy to find a lab section that matches the schedule of the students missing a lab. On the other hand, at MRU there is only one lab instructor for each 16-student lab section. Some feedback we have received from students is that they would prefer groups of two or three members as most of the time not every member of every group participates. Having one more student making up a lab resulted in having a group of five and made the group activity more difficult. We had received much negative feedback from students working with a new member in groups of five. Some lab instructors excused the missing lab grade and some provided a make-up lab opportunity during a time that worked for them and the students. There are many sessional lab instructors working in our department that cannot provide opportunities for students to make up labs during a time that they do not teach. On the other hand, they are not paid for the extra two-hour make-up labs as well. Not having a consistent solution for the students missing a lab in different sections increased the number of complaints. To address this challenge and use a consistent solution applicable in all lab sections, we decided to use a common practice in the Department of Mathematics and Computing at MRU that allows students to choose the best k quiz/activity grades from the n quizzes/activities written, a policy they call selective assessment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».