MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542608630 · doi:10.22329/celt.v2i0.3224

30. Sounds Good: Using Digital Audio for Evaluation Feedback

2009· article· en· W1542608630 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bob Rotheram

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYAudio feedbackAudio equipmentQuality (philosophy)Higher educationDigital audioPsychologyMultimediaSound qualityWork (physics)Mathematics educationComputer scienceMedical educationPedagogyAudio signalAcousticsSpeech recognitionEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feedback on student work is problematic for faculty and students in British higher education. Evaluation feedback takes faculty much time to produce and students are often dissatisfied with its quantity, timing, and clarity. The Sounds Good project has been experimenting with the use of digital audio for feedback, aiming to save faculty time and give students richer learning experiences. Results are generally positive, with students and faculty acknowledging the higher quality of audio feedback. Favourable circumstances for timesaving have been identified and there is reason to believe that more faculty will eventually be able to save time on feedback without loss of quality. Practice recommendations for the use of audio feedback are given. Some issues for further research are identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207