MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575384733 · doi:10.1063/1.3021273

What Levels of Guidance Promote Engaged Exploration with Interactive Simulations?

2008· article· en· W1575384733 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstinctStudent engagementResource (disambiguation)Science learningMathematics educationComputer scienceElegancePsychologyScience educationEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We became teachers because we want everyone to be able to see through science the elegance in nature as we do. Our instincts and training may lead us to “tell” students about science and math as we understand it. Unfortunately research has shown that simply telling is not always the most effective way to share our understanding. Simulations are a valuable instructional resource and can provide a wealth of data about student engagement and learning. Approximately 250 interviews have been conducted with simulations developed by the Physics Education Technology (PhET) Project. We’ve conducted interviews using several different levels of guidance and found that the nature of guidance influences the amount of student engagement. Minimal but nonzero guidance with many of these simulations promotes optimum engaged exploration and learning.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.232 · 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