MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Autonomous Learning Software on Chinese Learners’ English Performance and Course Assessment

2013· article· en· W1750011953 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chen Hong-fu, Yin Xiao-juan

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Active listeningMathematics educationAutonomous learningComputer scienceSoftwareTest (biology)Course (navigation)Control (management)College EnglishPsychologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the construction of an autonomous learning platform for college English learners, a one-year teaching reform experiment has been carried out and 204 subjects were involved. Data collection was conducted mainly through questionnaires and the subjects’ autonomous learning achievements, regular grades, final exam performance, and English listening achievements. The software SPSS17.0 was applied to analyze those data. The results reveal that the experimental class’ achievements on the self-learning platform are positively correlated with their achievements in the final examination. In addition, the correlation between the experimental class’ regular grades and final exam performance is more statistically significant than the control class; moreover, the experimental class performed significantly better than the control class in the English listening test. The vast majority of the students in the experimental class hold positive attitudes towards the software; however, there is still some room to improve it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207