Exploring Individual Differences in Attitudes toward Audience Response Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine individual differences in attitudes toward Audience Response Systems (ARSs) in secondary school classrooms. Specifically, the impact of gender, grade, subject area, computer comfort level, participation level, and type of use were examined in 659 students. Males had significantly more positive attitudes toward ARSs than female students. Students who were more comfortable with computers had significantly more positive attitudes than students who were less comfortable. Students who did not actively participate in class before ARSs were used were more positive about this tool than students who regularly participated. Finally, students were significantly more positive about ARSs when they were used for formative (not for grades) as opposed to summative (for grades) assessment. There were no significant differences observed for grade level or subject area taught. Résumé La présente étude visait à étudier les variations personnelles dans la disposition des élèves du secondaire envers l’utilisation de systèmes de réponse, ou télévoteurs, en classe. Plus précisément, l’étude a examiné l’impact du sexe, de l’année d’études, de la matière, de l’aisance en informatique, du niveau de participation et du type d’utilisation sur 659 élèves. La disposition des garçons envers les télévoteurs était significativement meilleure que celle des filles. De plus, les élèves les plus à l’aise avec les ordinateurs avaient une réponse significativement plus positive que les élèves moins à l’aise. Les élèves qui ne participaient pas activement en classe avant l’utilisation de télévoteurs avaient quant à eux une attitude plus positive envers cet outil que les élèves qui participaient déjà régulièrement. Enfin, les élèves démontraient une attitude plus favorable envers les télévoteurs lorsque ceux-ci étaient utilisés aux fins d’évaluations formatives (non notées), par opposition aux fins d’évaluations sommatives (notées). Il n’y avait pas de différences significatives observées en fonction de l’année d’études ou de la matière enseignée.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".