Acceptance by undergraduates of the immediate feedback assessment technique for multiple‐choice testing
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
Abstract 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. Notes * Corresponding Author: Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada. Email: david.dibattista@brocku.ca Information about the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IFAT), including details about cost and availability, can be obtained from Michael L. Epstein, Department of Psychology, Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ 18648, USA. Additional informationNotes on contributorsDavid Dibattista Footnote* * Corresponding Author: Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada. Email: david.dibattista@brocku.ca
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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