MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597901101 · doi:10.22329/celt.v2i0.3208

14. Using Interteaching to Enhance Student Engagement and Learning

2009· article· en· W1597901101 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alan Scoboria, Fuschia M. Sirois, Antonio Pascual‐Leone

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudent engagementMathematics educationPsychologyTeaching methodEmpirical researchPeer evaluationPedagogyEmpirical evidenceHigher educationEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe our experience with a recently devised teaching method termed interteaching (Boyce & Hineline, 2002). This educational approach provides a rich rehearsal of material, and emphasizes student engagement, peer discussion, and student/instructor interaction. We describe the method, provide pragmatic tips for implementation in the classroom, review empirical evidence, and discuss advantages and disadvantages.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207