Assessing Technology Enhanced Instruction: A Case Study in Secondary Science
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
The paper describes an evaluation program designed to assess the effectiveness of Technology Enhanced Instruction (TEI). The study is situated within the context of the Technology Enhanced Secondary Science Instruction (TESSI) project, a seven-year, field-based research program of technology integration into secondary science (grades 9–12). Evaluation procedures include analyses of student enrollment and achievement, teacher-researcher reports, an independent ethnographic assessment, the project's scalability, and interviews with graduates from the program. Taken together, these evaluations of TESSI support claims that TESSI is a scaleable and reproducible model of successful TEI implementation, which encourages greater student enrollment and retention in senior science electives (i.e. greater success for more students), and prepares students for post-secondary education and the realities of an information-based workplace. The effectiveness of the project's implementation of technology is supported by both quantitative and qualitative data.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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