An Exploratory Study into the Efficacy of Learning Objects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive study explored online graduate students' perceptions of effective instructor feedback. The objectives of the study were to determine the students’ perceptions of the content of effective instructor feedback (“what should be included in effective feedback?”) and the process of effective instructor feedback (“how should effective feedback be provided?”). The participants were students completing health-related graduate courses offered exclusively online. Data were collected via a survey that included open ended questions inviting participants to share their perspectives regarding effective online instructor feedback. Thematic analysis revealed five major themes: student involvement/individualization, gentle guidance, being positively constructive, timeliness and future orientation. We conclude that effective instructor feedback has positive outcomes for the students. Future studies are warranted to investigate strategies to make feedback a mutual process between instructor and student that supports an effective feedback cycle.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it