MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Virtual Lecture Hall For In-Class And Online Sections

2006· article· en· W2031345460 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Technology in Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLecture hallClass (philosophy)PsychologyResource (disambiguation)Mathematics educationMultimediaComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We further evaluated the Virtual Lecture Hall (VLH) (Cramer, Collins, Snider, & Fawcett, in press), an instructional computer-based platform to deliver PowerPoint slides threaded with audio clips for later review. Students from either an in-class or online section (ns = 810 and 74 respectively) of introductory psychology had access to live recorded lectures via the VLH, made available through the course Web site. Approximately 45% of in-class and 78% of online students used the resource prior to each of two course midterms; 32% of in-class and 50% of online students completed a five-item survey assessing student perceptions of whether the VLH enhanced learning or increased grades, and whether they wanted the resource in other courses. Number of VLH accesses and total duration were calculated. Results showed that regardless of course section, greater VLH use was linked to higher midterm scores, and student perceptions of the VLH were highly favorable. Curiously, whereas in-class students’ VLH use and duration were negatively related to expected grade, that same link was positive for online students. Directions for future research in resource development and implications for educators are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.421 · 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