MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988122822 · doi:10.4018/jdet.2008040103

On Scaffolding Adaptive Teaching Prompts Within Virtual Labs

2008· article· en· W1988122822 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Najjar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Distance Education Technologies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Representation (politics)The InternetKnowledge representation and reasoningTUTORMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a growing development of virtual laboratories which use the advantages of multimedia and Internet for distance education, learning by means of such tutorial tools would be more effective if they were specifically tailored to each student needs. The virtual teaching process would be well adapted if an artificial tutor can identify the correct acquired knowledge, recognise the erroneous learner’s knowledge and suggest a suitable sequence of pedagogical activities to improve the level of the student. This paper proposes a knowledge representation model which judiciously serves the remediation process to students’ errors during e-learning activities. The model is inspired by recent researches on computational representation of the knowledge and by cognitive psychology theories that offer a refined modelling of the human learning processes. Experimental results, obtained via practical tests, show that the knowledge representation and remediation approach facilitates the planning of tailored sequences of feedbacks that considerably help the learner.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Distance Education TechnologiesSame topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207