New assessment process in an introductory undergraduate physics laboratory: an exploration on collaborative learning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new team learning assessment process was designed and tested in a first-year university physics laboratory class. The assessment process was designed to provide a strong incentive for students to cooperate and feel responsible for each other’s learning and fostering a sense of collaboration rather than competition. Specifically, the new assessment process involves randomly dividing students into teams of four to work on a physics experiment and, at the end of the laboratory session, randomly selecting only one team member to carry out a post-laboratory session performance task. The results indicate that learning outcomes were not compromised in the new assessment process and that peer instruction was employed to a greater extent compared to our standard process. Student responses from a post-assessment survey revealed that 76% of students considered our new assessment process to be fair, whereas 57% of students felt our standard process was fair. The new assessment process used in this study led to a 75% reduction in grading duties – an advantage for large class management.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 it