Quantitative Analysis of the Usage of a Pedagogical Tool Combining Questions Listed as Learning Objectives and Answers Provided as Online Videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve the learning of basic concepts in molecular biology of an undergraduate science class, a pedagogical tool was developed, consisting of learning objectives listed at the end of each lecture and answers to those objectives made available as videos online. The aim of this study was to determine if the pedagogical tool was used by students as instructed, and to explore students’ perception of its usefulness. A combination of quantitative survey data and measures of online viewing was used to evaluate the usage of the pedagogical practice. A total of 77 short videos linked to 11 lectures were made available to 71 students, and 64 completed the survey. Using online tracking tools, a total of 7046 views were recorded. Survey data indicated that most students (73.4%) accessed all videos, and the majority (98.4%) found the videos to be useful in assisting their learning. Interestingly, approximately half of the students (53.1%) always or most of the time used the pedagogical tool as recommended, and consistently answered the learning objectives before watching the videos. While the proposed pedagogical tool was used by the majority of students outside the classroom, only half used it as recommended limiting the impact on students’ involvement in the learning of the material presented in class.
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 | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".