MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023038253 · doi:10.1080/1356251032000155803

Acceptance by undergraduates of the immediate feedback assessment technique for multiple‐choice testing

2004· article· en· W2023038253 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David DiBattista, John O. Mitterer

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching in Higher Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersCentre for Teaching and Learning, Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaBrock University
KeywordsTest (biology)AppealPsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMathematics educationApplied psychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Undergraduates completed a questionnaire after using the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IFAT), a commercially available answer form for multiple‐choice (MC) testing that can be used easily and conveniently with large classes. This simple new technique for MC testing provides immediate feedback for each item in an answer‐until‐correct format and permits the earning of partial credit when the student's initial response is incorrect. Reaction to the IFAT was extremely positive, with students saying it was easy to use and contributed to their learning, and they indicated a strong desire to use the IFAT for all MC tests. Liking for the IFAT was not related to either personal characteristics or test performance variables, indicating that it has broad appeal to students.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations63
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching in Higher EducationSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207