Are They Climbing the Pyramid? Rating Student-Generated Questions in a Game Design Project / Grimpent-ils la pyramide? Évaluation des questions produites par les étudiants dans un projet de conception de jeux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have examined the use of homemade PowerPoint games as an instructional technique to improve learning outcomes. However, test data have shown no significant difference in performance between high school chemistry students who created games and students who did not (Siko, Barbour, & Toker, 2011). One of the justifications for the use of the games is that students will, with practice, write higher-order questions when constructing the games. Two subject matter experts rated over 2,500 questions from games created by students in an environmental chemistry class through thematic analysis using Bloom’s taxonomy as a coding scheme. The students wrote primarily recall questions, and students who created games on two occasions did not write more questions than students who only created games once. This suggests that changes to the question-writing aspect of the game project may be necessary in order to see improvements in achievement when compared to control groups. Les chercheurs ont étudié l’usage de jeux PowerPoint maison en tant que technique pédagogique visant à améliorer les résultats d'apprentissage. Les données des tests n'ont toutefois révélé aucune différence significative quant au niveau de performance des étudiants du secondaire en chimie ayant créé des jeux et celui des étudiants n’en ayant pas conçus (Siko, Barbour, et Toker, 2011). L’utilisation des jeux est notamment justifiée par l’idée que, pratique aidant, les étudiants écrivent des questions plus complexes lorsqu’ils élaborent des jeux. Au moyen d’une analyse thématique utilisant la taxonomie de Bloom comme système de codification, deux experts chimistes ont évalué plus de 2500 questions provenant de jeux conçus par des étudiants d’une classe de chimie environnementale. Les étudiants ont rédigé principalement des questions faisant appel à la mémoire, et les étudiants ayant créé des jeux à deux reprises n’ont pas produit davantage de questions que ceux qui en étaient à leur première expérience de création de jeux. Il appert que des changements à la rédaction des questions sont requis au projet de jeux pour pouvoir améliorer la performance par rapport aux groupes témoins.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".