Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the use of anonymous pop quizzes (APQs) during stand-alone and multi-session library instruction sessions. APQs were used at the end of a class as a tool to test how well students have understood the material presented to them, to reinforce retention of important points, to increase student engagement through an interactive task, and to assist the instructor in planning and preparing future classes. Pop quizzes are frequently used in the classroom. They are popular with students as they often allow for bonus points [1, 2] and popular with teachers as they encourage student attendance and pre-class preparation [3]. Padilla-Walker has shown that students who performed well on daily extra-credit quizzes did better on final exams [2], while Nevid found that “mastery” quizzes—pop-quizzes given at the beginning and end of a class lecture to indicate key lecture concepts—led to a marked improvement by undergraduate psychology students in terms of retention of key concepts [4]. The research on announced versus unannounced quizzes is contradictory: Some studies indicate students performed better on unannounced quizzes (i.e., pop quizzes) as they encourage attendance in class and the review of materials prior to coming to class [5, 6], while other work found announced quizzes led to improved exam performance and final grades for undergraduate medical students [7]. The few examples of anonymous quizzes in the literature (called ConcepTests or interactive anonymous quizzes) were used in the late-1990s in physics and chemistry classes [8–,10]. However, these examples—which tended to be highly structured, focus on a single question, and involve a great deal of in-class discussion amongst students—are quite different in format from the APQs as used in this study at the University of Saskatchewan. While the literature is scarce on the use of APQs in instruction, overall, the use of pop quizzes in the classroom setting has been shown to identify problem areas that need additional reinforcement [6], encourage class attendance and pre-class preparation [11], and allow students to preview sample test questions [11, 12]. It was with these potential benefits in mind that the use of APQs was implemented in library instruction in a health sciences library.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".