MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1654600664 · doi:10.21432/t2j300

Optional online quizzes: College student use and relationship to achievement

2006· article· en· W1654600664 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic achievementPsychologyMathematics educationComprehensionCognitionClass (philosophy)Student achievementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online practice tests and quizzes are commonly available to higher education students. The extent of student use of such study tools and the relationship of use to achievement, however, have not been fully investigated. One hundred twelve college students were encouraged to use optional online quizzes in preparation for proctored examinations. In-class examinations included multiple choice items that assessed four cognitive domains: factual, application, comprehension, and conceptual. In general, few students made extensive use of the optional online quizzes. Analysis revealed that student use of online quizzes was associated with increased academic achievement, although it was not clear if quiz use caused achievement or achievement caused quiz use. Short-answer and true-false online quiz items were differentially associated with measures of academic achievement, suggesting that cognitive processing differed across item format. Implications for further research are provided.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.294 · 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