Legacy TRIPSEs (Tri‐Partite Problem‐Solving Exercises): Fostering Student Engagement and Learning in Large Classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The TRIPSE is a process‐oriented problem solving exercise that mimics the scientific process. Using limited data, students: 1) frame hypotheses; 2) design experimental tests; and 3) later with new information, reassess answers. Earlier we validated it as an evaluative exercise in a large class (The FASEB Journal. 2008; 22:767.1). We report here the use of TRIPSEs to promote student engagement and learning in a freshmen introductory biology class. In part 1, students learned about gene expression and cell signaling. In part 2, students (groups of 5) incorporated elements of what they had learned into designing novel problems that could be left as a “legacy” for future classes. Groups were told to: 1) write challenging problems based on published material; 2) state 4 plausible hypotheses and for each hypothesis indicate appropriate experimental tests; and 3) provide annotated references. Interim feedback was given. Groups were assessed on clarity, creativity, plausibility of hypotheses, relevance of the experiments proposed and corroboration for statements made. On an exit survey, a total of 322 students from 2 separate years rated this exercise the most valuable amongst several used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".