Using Computer Technology to Foster Learning for Understanding
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
The literature shows that students typically use either a surface approach to learning, in which the emphasis is on memorization of facts, or a deep approach to learning, in which learning for understanding is the primary focus. This paper describes how computer technology, specifically the use of a multimedia CD-ROM, was integrated into a microbiology curriculum as part of the transition from focusing on facts to fostering learning for understanding. Evaluation of the changes in approaches to learning over the course of the term showed a statistically significant shift in a deep approach to learning, as measured by the Study Process Questionnaire. Additional data collected showed that the use of computer technology supported this shift by providing students with the opportunity to apply what they had learned in class to order tests and interpret the test results in relation to specific patient-focused case studies. The extent of the impact, however, varied among different groups of students in the class. For example, students who were recent high school graduates did not show a statistically significant increase in deep learning scores over the course of the term and did not perform as well in the course. The results also showed that a surface approach to learning was an important aspect of learning for understanding, although only those students who were able to combine a surface with a deep approach to learning were successfully able to learn for understanding. Implications of this finding for the future use of computer technology and learning for understanding are considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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