MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Virtual Lecture Hall For In-Class And Online Sections

2006· article· en· W2031345460 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth M. Cramer, Kandice R. Collins, Don M. Snider, Graham Fawcett

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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

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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research on Technology in EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207